2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-25-2008 

# P alme r v . H arri sburg P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4535

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P alme r v . H arri sburg " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1322. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1322C L D - 1 7 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4535 S HAU N C. P ALM ER,

A p p e llan t, v . CI TY O F H A RR I SBU RG , PA ; LEV ELL J EN K I N S; M I CH AEL A . CO NSI GLI O; CA SEY SHO RE, i ndi vi dual l yand i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 01973) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed on A ppel l ees ’ J oi ntM ot i on ForSum m aryA ct i on and for P o ss ib le D ism iss a l P u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) a n d /o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 10, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 25, 2008)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antShaun C . Pal m er , a s t at e pr i s oner , fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on pr o s e on Sept ember6, 2006 i n t he D auphi n C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas agai ns tthe C i tyofI tw as al l eged thatM s . H arr i s w as s el l i ng cr ack c ocai ne fr om thi s r es i dence . 1 Pal m erw as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , and s ent ence d on J une 12, 2003 t o a 2 t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi ve t o t en y ear s . T he j udgm entof s ent ence w as aff i r m ed byt he S u p e rio r C o u rt. 2 H arr i s bur g and O ffi cerL evel l J enki ns , and M i chae l C ons i gl i o and C as eyShor e of the D auphi n C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n connec t i on w i th t he s ear ch and s ei zur e of hi s vehi cl e. H e al s o i ncl uded comm on l aw caus es of ac t i on i n hi s compl ai ntfordefa m at i on, tr es pas s , conver s i on, and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . Pal m ers oughtm oneydamages . T he ca s e w as r emoved b yth e d e f

e n d a n ts to U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia b yn o ti ce p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 1 (c). T he ci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o the compl ai ntar e notdi s put ed. O n M ar ch 13, 2002, O ffi cerJ enki ns and other s exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr ant , w hi ch author i zed the s ear ch o f 1 9 3 1 F o rste r S tre e t in H a rrisb u rg , P e n n sy lv a n ia, W e n d yH a rris, a n d a ll o c c u p a n ts in the r es i dence atthe t i m e of e xecut i on of the w arr ant . Pal m erw as uncl othed and i n bed 1 w ith M s. H arris w h en the o ff icers arrive d v eryea rl yin the m o rnin g . O n e o f th e o ff icers con du ct i ng the search retri eved P al m er’ s pants , sear ched the p ock et s, and dis cov ered cash and appr oxi m at el y20 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne i n Z i pl oc baggi es . Pal m erw as arr es t ed and char ged w i th pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i vera contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , and pos s es s i on of drug par aphernal i a. 23

P a lm e r’ s v e h ic le w a s p a rk e d o n th e s tr e e t a d ja c e n t to th e p re m is e s s e a rc h e d . O ffi cerJ enki ns r eques t ed Pal m er ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the vehi cl e. Pal m err efus ed. T he offi cer s then had the vehi cl e t ow ed t o D on’ s T ow i ng C om panypendi ng i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr ant . O n t hats ame day , O ffi cerJ enki ns appl i ed fora w arr antt o s ear ch the vehi cl e on the gr ound thatPal m erhad a pr i orconvi ct i on fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, and w as s us pect ed of us i ng the vehi cl e t o s t or e addi t i onal drugs and ca s h bey ond thatdi s cover ed i n hi s cl othi ng. T he w arr antw as author i zed bya D i s tr i ctJ us t i ce, the vehi cl e w as i m pounded and s ear ched, and nothi ng fur therw as di s cover ed. I nform at i on r e g a r d i n g th e s e i z u r e o f P a l me r ’ s v e h i c l e wa s , h o we v e r , p u b l i s h e d i n T h e P a tr i o t - Ne ws (giv ing ri se to h is cau se o f a cti o n fo r de fa m ati o n ). S o o n a f ter th e se izu re o f

h is v e h icle , P a lm e r b e g a n d e a lin g w ith th e D a u p h in C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce i n or dert o r egai n pos s es s i on of i t . O n oraboutJ une 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , the D istric t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice d e f e n d a n ts b e g a n o f

f e rin g to re tu rn th e v e h icle in cons i der at i on of a pa ym entfr om Pal m erof $1000. 00. Pal m err efus ed. O n J ul y3, 2002, th e D is tr ic t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ic e c o m m e n c e d a c iv il f o rf e itu re a c tio n , N o . 3 0 0 1 C V 2 0 0 2 . O n N o v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , P a lm e r’s m o th e r, Jo y c e P a lm e r, m a d e th e $ 1 0 0 0 .0 0 p a ym e n t in return fo r th e v eh icl e, an d the D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s O ff ice the n d isco n ti n u ed the f o rfe itu re a c tio n . N e v e rth e les s, P a lm e r f iled a m o tio n f

o r re tu rn o f

p ro p e rtyin th e D a u p h in C o u n ty C our tof C om m on Pl eas on Sept ember2, 2004 atN o. 1508 C R 2002, s eeki ng a r efund of the $1000. 00 paym ent . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the H onor abl e J ohn C herryrul ed thatthe4

act i on had bee n s ett l ed bythe paym entand r eturn of the vehi cl e. In th e in sta n t civ il righ ts a c tio n , P a lm e r c o n ten d e d th a t O f f ice r Je n k in s v io late d h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b yto w in g h is v e h icle w ith o u t a w a rra n t an d w ith o u t p ro b a b le caus e. M or eover , the s ear ch w arr antappl i cabl e t o the vehi cl e w as uncons t i tut i onal and i nval i d. H e cont ended thathe w as ent i t l ed t o, and depr i ved of, a ful l j udi ci al hear i ng pr i ort o the s ear ch and s ei zur e of hi s vehi cl e, and the fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de s uch a he ar i ng vi ol at ed hi s Four t eenth A m endmentr i ghtt o pr ocedur al due pr oces s . Pal m erfur ther cont ended thatthe D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce f ai l ed t o fol l ow the corr ectpr ocedur es for c iv il f o rf e itu re s u n d e r t h e C o n tr o lle d S u b s ta n c e s F o rf e itu re A c t, 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 6 8 0 1 , an d th e V e h icle A c t, 35 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 8 3 1 .2 , an d im p ro p e rlyre tain e d h is veh i cl e for tw entym on ths. T h e d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 12( b) , cont endi ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatal l cl ai m s w er e barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i on, the C i tyof H arr i s bur g coul d notbe hel d l i abl e i n an act i on fordamages under42 U . S. C . § 1983 on the bas i s of r es pondeats uper i or , Pal m er had no l egal l ycogni zabl e r i ghtt o a hea r i ng pr i ort o the t ow i ng of hi s vehi cl e, w hi ch occurr ed pur s uantt o a fa ci al l yval i d w arr anti s s ued bya neutr al di s tr i ctm agi s tr at e, and the acti on w as barr ed b ythe d octr i ne o f acco rd and sati sfact i on . P al m er oppo sed t hese m ot i ons , conce di ng thathi s act i on w as t i m e- barr ed butcont endi ng thathe di d not “di s cover ” hi s i nj uryunt i l aft erhe had r egai ned pos s es s i on of hi s vehi cl e, and r es ear chedT he dat e the vehi cl e ac tual l yw as s ear ched i s notdi s cl os ed bythe r ecor d, buti tw as 3 undi s put ed thati tw as s ear ched pr i ort o Pal m er ’ s pr el i m i naryhear i ng. 5 the l aw and di s cover ed thathi s vehi cl e had be en i m pr oper l ys ei zed. T hi s occurr ed no la te r t h a n S e p te m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d a te w h e n h e f ile d h is m o tio n f

o r r e tu rn o f

p ro p e rt y . P a lm e r a lso f

iled a m o tio n to a m e n d h is c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t. In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n s to d is m is s , d e n ie d P a lm e r’ s m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t, a n d d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t. T he courtconcl uded thatthe fe der al ci vi l r i ght s caus es of ac t i on and the comm on l aw causes of ac t i on for tres pass, con versi on , and i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s w er e t i m e- barr ed. See G arvi n v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a, 354 F. 3d 215, 220 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( cl ai m s br oughtunders ect i on 1983 ar e s ubj ectt o tw o- y ears t at e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons governi ng per s onal i nj uryact i ons ) ; G entyv. R es ol ut i on T rus tC orp. , 937 F. 2d 899, 919 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( s ame) . A l l of the cl ai m s agai ns tO ffi cerJ enki ns ar os e betw een M ar ch 13, 2 0 0 2 , w h en P alm er’s v eh icl e w as se ized , an d A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 2 , the d ate o f h is preli m inary hear i ng. T he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as tw o y ear s , and thus the Sept ember6,

3 2 0 0 6 f i l i n g w a s n o tt i m e l y a s t o h i m . P a l m e r ’ s c l a i m s a g a i n s tD e p u ty D i s tr i c tA t t o rn e ys C ons i gl i o and Shor e ar os e betw een M ar ch 13, 2002 and N ovember25, 2003, the dat e the vehi cl e w as r eturned and the ci vi l for fei tur e ac t i on w as di s cont i nued. A gai n, the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as tw o y ear s , and thus the Sept ember6, 2006 fi l i ng w as nott i m el yas t o t hem. Pal m er ’ s comm on l aw caus e of a ct i on fordefa m at i on w as barr ed bythe ap pli cable one-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s.W e o b serv ed in M il ler v. P h il ad elph ia G eriatr ic C en ter, 4 6 3 F . 3 d 2 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), 4 thatthi s obj ect i ve t es ti s , how ever , s uffi ci ent l yfl exi bl e t o t ake i nt o acc ountdefe ct s i n a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ent al capa ci ty . I d. at276 ( ci t i ng Fi ne v. C hecc i o, 870 A . 2d 850, 858 ( Pa. 2 0 0 5 )). 6 F u rth erm o re, Pa lm er w as n o t entit led to relyo n the d isco v eryrule. T h e d isco v ery rule w as a d o p ted b yP en n sy lvan ia co u rt s in rec o g n it ion o f th e f ac t th at so m e inju ri es a re noti m m edi at el yappar ent . See Fi ne v. C hecc i o, 870 A . 2d 850, 858 ( Pa. 2005) . T he di s coveryrul e appl i es i n cas es w her e the i nj ur ed partyi s unabl e t o know thathe i s i nj ur ed an d to k n o w w h at ca u sed the in jury , d esp it e the ex erc ise o f re aso n ab le dili g en ce . Id. In thatcas e, the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons does notbegi n t o run unt i l the per s on “di s cover s ” the i nj ury . I d. at859. H ow ever , the s t andar d of r eas onabl e di l i gence i s an obj ect i ve one a nd turns on the natur e of the i nj uryand w hetheri ti s l at ent , and does notturn on “any s peci fi c cha r act er i s t i cs uni que t o t he pl ai nt i ff thatm i ghtotherw i s e pr event[hi m ] fr om r ecogni zi ng hi s i nj uryas a ca us e of a ct i on. See Lake v. A rnol d, 232 F. 3d 360, 367 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T hus , the fa ctthatPal m erdi d notknow thathe mi ghthave a val i d caus e of a c tio n w a s n o t re lev a n t. T h e a lleg e d in ju rie s a n d th e c a u se s th e re o f w e re im m e d iate ly 4 a s c e rt a in a b le . T h u s , th e d is c o v e ry ru le d id n o t a p p ly in P a lm e r’ s c a s e . F i nall y , the acti on cou l d n ot be m ai ntai ned againstthe C i tyof H arr i sburg be cause Pal m erhad noti dent i fi ed a pol i cy , cus t om , orpr act i ce bythe C i tythatl ed t o a vi ol at i on of hi s ci vi l r i ght s , M onel l v. D ep’ tof Soci al Ser vi ces of C i tyof N ew Y or k, 436 U . S. 658, 690 ( 1978) ( C ongr es s di d noti nt end form uni ci pal i tyt o be hel d l i abl e unders ect i on 1983 so lelyb e c a u se it em p lo y s a to rtf e a so r), a n d th e re w a s n o b a sis f o r g ra n tin g h im lea v e to7

a m e n d h i s c o m p l a i n tb e c a u s e a n a m e n d m e n tw o u l d n o tc u r e th e t i m e l i n e s s d e f i c i e n c y. Pal m erappea l s . O urC l erk gr ant ed hi m l eave t o appea l i n form a paupe r i s and a d v i s e d h i m th a th i s a p p e a l wa s s u b j e c tt o d i s mi s s a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) . An a p p e lla n t m a yp ro s e c u te h is a p p e a l w ith o u t p re p a ym e n t o f th e f e e s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( a) ( 1) , butthe i n form a paupe r i s s t atut e pr ovi des thatthe C our ts hal l di s m i s s the a p p e a l a t a n ytim e if

th e C o u rt d e te rm in e s th a t it is f ri v o lo u s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . A n appea l i s fr i vol ous w hen i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei theri n l aw or fac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . I n addi t i on, the appe l l ees have s ubm i t t ed a j oi ntm ot i on fors um m aryact i on, T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, w hi ch Pal m erhas oppos ed i n w r i t i ng. We w i l l d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l a s f r i v o l o u s u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) . We h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . “[ W ]h e n ru lin g o n a d e f e n d a n t' s m o tio n to di s m i s s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , a j udge mustacc eptas t rue a ll o f th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s c o n tain e d in th e c o m p lain t.” E ric k so n v . P a rd u s, 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 1 9 7 , 2 2 0 0 (2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v . T w o m b ly, 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 (2 0 0 7 )) . T he courtm aycons i dercert ai n narr ow l ydefi ned types of m at er i al w i thoutconvert i ng t he m o tio n to d ism iss to a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n , su c h a s w h e n a d o c u m e n t is in teg ra l to orexpl i ci t l yr el i ed upon i n t he compl ai nt . I n r e R ockef el l erC ent erPr opert i es , I nc. Secur i t i es L i t i g. , 184 F. 3d 280, 287 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A courtm ayal s o cons i deran

“ u n d isp u ted lya u th e n tic d o c u m e n t th a t a d e f e n d a n t atta c h e s a s a n e x h ib it t o a m o tio n toI n G i bs on v. Super i nt endent , N . J . D ep’ tof Law and Publ i c Safe ty , 411 F. 3d 427 ( 3d 5 C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), ce rt. d e n ied , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 0 3 5 (2 0 0 6 ), w e a d d re ss e d w h e th e r th e f a v o ra b le ter m in a tio n ru le o f

H e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 -8 7 (1 9 9 4 ), ap p lied to F o u rth A m endmentcl ai m s , and w e appr oved of a fac t - bas ed i nqui ryi nt o w hetherthe part i cul ar claim im p li ed the in v ali d ityo f th e u n d erly ing co n v ict ion . Id. at 44 7 -45 1 . H ere , P alm er’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im c o n c e rn in g th e w a rra n tles s to w in g o f h is c a r, if s u c c e ss f

u l, w oul d nothave the ef

fec tof r ender i ng hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons i nval i d beca us e no contr aband w as found i n hi s car . I d. at451. H i s convi ct i ons w er e bas ed on evi dence se ize d f ro m h is p a n ts. T o th e e x ten t th a t P a lm e r in ten d e d th e in sta n t civ il righ ts a c tio n to i ncl ude a Fourth A m endmentchal l enge t o the s ear ch of hi s pant s , s ai d chal l enge i s barr ed b yH e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ), b e c a u se su c c e ss o n su c h a c laim w o u ld n e c e s s a ri ly im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n s , w h ic h h a v e n e v e r b e e n in v a lid a te d . H eck hol ds thata pr i s oner ’ s ci vi l r i ght s s ui tfordamages orequi t abl e r el i ef i s barr ed un l e s s he c a n d e mons tr a t e tha thi s c on vi c t i on ors e nt e nc e ha s be e n i nv a l i da t e d. 51 2 U. S. at486- 87. 8 di s m i s s i f the pl ai nt i ff' s cl ai m s ar e bas ed on the document . ” Pens i on B enef i tG uar . C orp. v. W hit e C on sol . Indus. , Inc. , 99 8 F . 2d 11 92 , 11 96 (3d C i r. 19 93 ). In this case, tho se exhi bi t s pr oper l ycons i der ed ( al l of w hi ch w er e att ache d t o the compl ai nt ) i ncl uded the aff i davi tof pr obabl e ca us e and s ear ch w arr antr el at i ng t o the s ear ch of 1931 For s t er St r eet , the af

fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e r el at i ng t o the s ear ch of Pal m er ’ s vehi cl e, por t i ons o f a tra n sc rip t f

ro m th e p re lim in a ryh e a rin g o n A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , p o rtio n s o f th e D a u p h in C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas cr i m i nal docketi n C om m w . v. Pal m er , 1508- cr - 2002, Pal m er ’ s m ot i on forr eturn of pr operty , and the D ece m ber20, 2004 tr ans cr i ptfr om the h e a r i n g b e f

o r e J u d g e C h e r r y. T h is a p p e a l o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b)(6 ) i s frivo lou s b ec au se itlack s an arg u ab le ba sis i n law . T h e D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l ydet erm i ned the dat es w hen Pal m er ’ s cl ai m s acc rued, and pr oper l yappl i ed the 59

governi ng l aw i n concl udi ng thathi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal caus es of ac t i on w er e barr ed b yth e tw o -ye a r s ta tu te s o f lim ita tio n a p p lic a b le to to rt s . S e e 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 5524( 2) , ( 7) . See al s o W i l s on v. G ar ci a, 471 U . S. 261 ( 1985) ( s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on appl i es t o act i ons under42 U . S. C . § 1983) . T he comm on l aw defa m at i on act i on w as barr ed bythe one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on, 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5523( 1) , and the comm on l aw caus es of ac t i on fortr es pas s , conver s i on, and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of e m o tio n a l d istre ss a ll w e re b a rre d b ytw o -y e a r sta tu tes o f lim itatio n , 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. A nn. § 5524( 2) , ( 3) , ( 7) . T he di s coveryrul e does notappl yi n Pal m er ’ s cas e, beca us e the al l eged i nj ur i es and the ca us es ther eof w er e i m m edi at el yas cert ai nabl e, and the t ar dy di s coveryof the l egal bas i s of hi s cl ai m does notw arr antappl i cat i on of the rul e. C f. M atthew s v. K i dder , Peabody& C o. , 260 F. 3d 239, 257 n. 26 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i gnor ance of l egal el ement s of cl ai m i m m at er i al t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng anal y s i s ) . M onel l bar s the ac t i on a g a in st th e C ityo f

H a rrisb u rg , an d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n to d e n yth e m o tio n to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t b e c a u se a n ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u til e in v iew o f th e ti m eli n ess p rob lem , see F o m an v . D av is, 3 7 1 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (19 6 2 ). W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al as fr i vol ous under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . T he a p p e llee s’ jo in t m o tio n f o r su m m a rya c tio n is d e n ied a s m o o t.